So why is an external hard drive better?

[Damani311]

I've been hearing alot that it's better to record to an external hard drive than the one in your computer.


??????why???????

Other than you can take it with you, which isn't a bad idea.

[Stay Gold 1337]

they are also separate from any internal hardware/software related problems your computer might encounter so you won't lose any data that way.

[shostkontrabass]

Originally Posted by Stay Gold 1337

they are also separate from any internal hardware/software related problems your computer might encounter so you won't lose any data that way.

Yeah, when my internal hard drive crashed recently, I was glad I had all the important files on my external!

Also, they can hold a lot more. My 160 GB external hard drive is a lot bigger than the hard drive in my computer, and I've seen ones as big as 500 GB! You can also buy externals that will write faster than your internal hard drive.

[kevinmoore73]

Personally, I don't think they are better outside of portability.

Stay Gold's comments are misleading because any communication with an external drive still has to go through as much hardware and software as an internal drive. (and sometimes more)

As for what shostkontrabass said, outside of high-end SAN or NAS equipment, external drives are not faster than internal drives when configured the same way. The same goes for size.

[Damani311]

Yeah they do get pretty huge, they have 1Terrabyte ones now.....

They can really write faster than an internal? Can't it only go as fast as what you're playing

Also backing up files on a blank DVD (twenty cents, 700MB) is good for ya

[nonfatmatt]

The best reason I can find is that it helps with probable latency/quality problems. The main disk is subject to a lot of random reads/writes when you're using it for both the OS and the recording drive. Once you start adding a lot of channels/etc then you start getting into pops/clicks happening because other stuff is being done at the same time.

[msquared]

I sing the praises of external hard drives a lot due to past experience with using them. Usually that's in conjunction with recording to a laptop, because just about any workstation-grade drive is going to outperform a similar laptop-grade drive. You can do your own research on this at http://www.storagereview.com if you are technically inclined.

The caveat: it really needs to be a firewire drive, and you really need to be using a firewire audio interface. If you're doing two tracks with a USB interface then it doesn't matter what you're using for a hard disk. You'll get more life out of your hard drive if you record to an external one but that's about the only benefit.

With a firewire interface going to a firewire drive, you are keeping most of the data on the firewire bus. It's not going to the laptop's (usually subpar) system bus and then to the disk bus. It makes for less bottlenecks between the eight or whatever channels you're recording and the disk, and a more solid recording environment in general.

If you're recording onto a desktop box and your target hard disk is 7200rpm and 40G or better, it doesn't really matter if the drive is external or not. The ability to detach and move it is nice and the disaster recovery is easier if your workstation crashes, but then you're hopefully doing backups onto CDR or DVDR anyway. It's too cheap to not do.

[meev992]

Originally Posted by Damani311

Yeah they do get pretty huge, they have 1Terrabyte ones now.....

for pornography

[MaxZolt]

Externals run pretty much the same risk of failure/data loss that an internal does. The main reason (at least for me) for an external setup is easy expandability. As your collection of recordings grows, you can easily expand external storage without having to shuffle around important system files. You also won't have to worry about opening up your computer's case to install new drives.

By using an external drive for the recordings themselves, you also won't take up space on your internal hard drive which could better be used for recording software and other programs. It's good to have the actual programs on the same drive as your operating system.

Finally, if your internal drive fails, you won't lose all your recordings.

[chrisp2u]

Originally Posted by nonfatmatt

The main disk is subject to a lot of random reads/writes when you're using it for both the OS and the recording drive. Once you start adding a lot of channels/etc then you start getting into pops/clicks happening because other stuff is being done at the same time.

That would be the primary reason. OS's use virtual memory/swap space on the internal system disk all the time. Having another drive (and not necessarily external... just another drive, really) allows you to dedicate the other drive strictly for audio. It's a lot of data to move continuously, so the fewer the potential bottlenecks the better. Most DAW's will see improved performance (usually in that they'll allow you more tracks before "issues") by using a separate drive to capture and playback audio.
---
c

[BetterBottomEnd]

The optimal situation is actually having two internal drives. Like someone already said outside of massively high end stuff an internal drive is going to be faster. The key is that the drive you save your data on and work on is separate from your OS drive. Our systems at school are almost brand new quad-core G5's with 4Gb or RAM and I still managed to kill Pro Tools on a fairly regular basis until I started saving onto the secondary drive.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by BetterBottomEnd

The optimal situation is actually having two internal drives. Like someone already said outside of massively high end stuff an internal drive is going to be faster. The key is that the drive you save your data on and work on is separate from your OS drive.

Thank you! I was just going to post this. It seems as though many in this thread don't realize you can have more than one hard drive in a computer.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by Damani311

Also backing up files on a blank DVD (twenty cents, 700MB) is good for ya

A single layer DVD holds about 4.3GB. You're thinking of CDs.

[Valerus]

Originally Posted by meev992

for pornography

among other things that may be labeled "illegal".

[DocBop]

The key point is keep your OS and data on separate drives. Doesn't matter if the second drive is internal or external just that the OS and data aren't both fighting for access to the same drive. That reduces head travel, improves cache hits, and reduces wear and tear.

[Infernal Affair]

I totally agree with kevinmoore73, BetterBottomEnd, and DocBop. Separate drives is where its at, with the large drive storing all files and the smaller drive containing the OS. If both are the same size, then it doesn't matter much. It's a must for graphics work, so I would assume the benefits for audio are just as much. I also prefer internal drives. Not only are there speed benefits, but I'd rather have my drives where there's no chance that it will get dropped, bumped into, spilled on, etc. There's less chance of that happening when it's securely installed in a computer case.

However, external drives are terrific if you want to transport data and if you work with more than one station (ie. home vs. office). Also with laptops it often isn't feasible to have multiple internal hard drives.

If a hard drive fails then it fails, external or internal. Not much else you can do about it.

[nonfatmatt]

On a side note, eSata is getting bigger as an external interface, which basically gives you internal drive performance. Not sure if any laptops ship with it.

[Jimtoonz]

DAW best practice is to have your OS(and its supporting swap file) on a separate drive from the one used to receive and playback the audio data stream.

As to the question of internal vs. external from a performance standpoint, the location of the drive is not the determining factor. You could take your internal ATA or SATA device and move it outside the computer's case(stringing power and interface cables from inside). Assuming no extreme environmental factors were encountered that would degrade drive performance and that cabling length remained within spec, the data transfer rate would remain the same.

The real issues that impact drive performance are the drive itself(RPM, read, write, seek, and buffer performance) AND the ability of the computer's interface to shove the data from one place to another. This is an area in which a huge amount of misinformation exists.

For purposes of any data transfer, whether to a hard drive, over a network or you name it, the effective throughput is only going to be as fast as the weakest part of the data chain. When USB devices first started to enjoy widespread use, many people were claiming that their USB audio interfaces were outperforming PCI-based(internal) interfaces. Let's look at the math on that question since part of it applies to hard drives as well:

Bus Width Clock Throughput

USB2.0 1 bit 480mHz 60Mb/s
PCI 32bits 33mHz 133Mb/s

Remember, we are needing to move 8 bits of data to write a Byte on the disk.

Using this formula-

Data throughput in BYTES/sec = (bus widthXclock rate)/8

For USB2.0:

(1 X 480,000,000)/8 = 60,000,000B/s

For PCI:

(32X33,333,333)/8 = 133,333,333B/s

Many people look at the clock rates of USB and Firewire and assume that this means that more data is being moved. In fact, since both USB and Firewire are both serial standards, meaning that data is moved down the bus one bit at a time, 33mHz PCI (by moving 32 bits of data on one clock cycle) can easily outstrip both USB 2.0 and Firewire 800, which are still the most commonly sold external hard drive interfaces. Note that the current most widely sold internal hard drive interface today is SATA which is even faster than 33mHz PCI. Also, note that PCI has given way to even faster internal bus specifications like PCI Express x16 which can move a whopping 4000 MB/sec, but is still in widespread use.

Here are the figures for the most commonly sold internal hard drive types in the last 5 years:

Device type Bandwidth

ATA 100 100MB/s
ATA 133 133MB/s
SATA 150(1200Mbps) 150MB/s
SATA 300(2400Mbps) 300MB/s

Note that the slowest of these, ATA100 still exceeds the bandwidth of both USB2.0 and Firewire(IEEE1394b), 60 and 98 MB/s respectively.

Once the bus has reached the level of SATA 150, the fastest hard drives in widespread consumer use today can barely saturate the bus(due to physical limitations of the drive itself), so that SATA 300 can only exhibit an effective performance bump when talking to an array of devices or to non-mechanical media(read RAM). The single spinning disk media is (as of yet) unable to take advantage of that level of throughput.

Still, in terms of hardware most commonly found in a current day DAW, the internal vs. external debate is most likely a SATA 150 internal drive vs. an external device on either USB2.0 or Firewire 800(IEEE 1394b). Comparing the bus performance alone, here's the score:

Externals
USB2.0 60MB/s
Firewire 800 98.3 MB/s

Internal
SATA150 150 MB/s

...or, to quote PC World magazine in a recent article :
"External hard drives aren't as fast as internal models, but they are great for backups and are easy to install."

The advent of eSATA has the potential to level the throughput playing field. It will be interesting to see how large a splash it makes in the market.

[improvpwnd]

Originally Posted by Jimtoonz

DAW best practice is to have your OS(and its supporting swap file) on a separate drive from the one used to receive and playback the audio data stream.

As to the question of internal vs. external from a performance standpoint, the location of the drive is not the determining factor. You could take your internal ATA or SATA device and move it outside the computer's case(stringing power and interface cables from inside). Assuming no extreme environmental factors were encountered that would degrade drive performance and that cabling length remained within spec, the data transfer rate would remain the same.

The real issues that impact drive performance are the drive itself(RPM, read, write, seek, and buffer performance) AND the ability of the computer's interface to shove the data from one place to another. This is an area in which a huge amount of misinformation exists.

For purposes of any data transfer, whether to a hard drive, over a network or you name it, the effective throughput is only going to be as fast as the weakest part of the data chain. When USB devices first started to enjoy widespread use, many people were claiming that their USB audio interfaces were outperforming PCI-based(internal) interfaces. Let's look at the math on that question since part of it applies to hard drives as well:

Bus Width Clock Throughput

USB2.0 1 bit 480mHz 60MB/s
PCI 32bits 33mHz 133MB/s

Remember, we are needing to move 8 bits of data to write a Byte on the disk.

Using this formula-

Data throughput in BYTES/sec = (bus widthXclock rate)/8

For USB2.0:

(1 X 480,000,000)/8 = 60,000,000B/s

For PCI:

(32X33,333,333)/8 = 133,333,333B/s

Many people look at the clock rates of USB and Firewire and assume that this means that more data is being moved. In fact, since both USB and Firewire are both serial standards, meaning that data is moved down the bus one bit at a time, 33mHz PCI (by moving 32 bits of data on one clock cycle) can easily outstrip both USB 2.0 and Firewire 800, which are still the most commonly sold external hard drive interfaces. Note that the current most widely sold internal hard drive interface today is SATA which is even faster than 33mHz PCI. Also, note that PCI has given way to even faster internal bus specifications like PCI Express x16 which can move a whopping 4000 MB/sec, but is still in widespread use.

Here are the figures for the most commonly sold internal hard drive types in the last 5 years:

Device type Bandwidth

ATA 100 100MB/s
ATA 133 133MB/s
SATA 150(1200Mbps) 150MB/s
SATA 300(2400Mbps) 300MB/s

Note that the slowest of these, ATA100 still exceeds the bandwidth of both USB2.0 and Firewire(IEEE1394b), 60 and 98 MB/s respectively.

Once the bus has reached the level of SATA 150, the fastest hard drives in widespread consumer use today can barely saturate the bus(due to physical limitations of the drive itself), so that SATA 300 can only exhibit an effective performance bump when talking to an array of devices or to non-mechanical media(read RAM). The single spinning disk media is (as of yet) unable to take advantage of that level of throughput.

Still, in terms of hardware most commonly found in a current day DAW, the internal vs. external debate is most likely a SATA 150 internal drive vs. an external device on either USB2.0 or Firewire 800(IEEE 1394b). Comparing the bus performance alone, here's the score:

Externals
USB2.0 60MB/s
Firewire 800 98.3 MB/s

Internal
SATA150 150 MB/s

...or, to quote PC World magazine in a recent article :
"External hard drives aren't as fast as internal models, but they are great for backups and are easy to install."

The advent of eSATA has the potential to level the throughput playing field. It will be interesting to see how large a splash it makes in the market.

Thank you for posting this so I didn't have to. This post is all you need to read whoever has questions.

[Emergancy Exit]

the only advantage is that it is safer from crashes. and you can disconect it and take it with you. performance wise, internal hardrives are better. (unless it's in a laptop that has a slower hard drive but i was compareing it to a desktop PC)